Jaicee said:
I can certainly see how it's an unfair system in that it makes it much harder for poorer people than it is for wealthier individuals to get out of jail when they should probably be there (and no doubt there's a racially disparate proxy effect to that, moreover), but I also don't see how poorer communities benefit from having more criminals free to commit more crimes. |
First of all, these are not necessarily "criminals" we are talking about. These people have not been convicted, they have been accused. It is somewhat alarming how easily people are willing to call these people criminals and say we need to lock them up for months or years without a trial.
But also, if you believe this, should we not have a system designed around harm prevention and not around money? If we truly believe that an individual is dangerous, why would we say "Okay, if you can pay us we'll let you out"? That seems nonsensical. Not only does it mean that rich dangerous people can just walk free, like you mentioned, but it also means that poor dangerous people can walk free if they make an agreement with a bail bondsman (which is an exploitative private system leeching off of the injustices of cash bail). Eliminating cash bail may also result in some individuals who may have previously been released after paying a high bail, instead being held in jail if we are making decisions based on harm reduction, further increasing public safety.
(This also ignores all of the downstream harms of cash bail)
The US doesn't need cash bail. It needs to stop using our criminal justice system to enrich private enterprises and start using it to prevent harm. I understand the fear of eliminating cash bail, and I'm sure you will hear the media make a lot of noise about what individuals who commit crimes waiting for trials, but I personally can't stomach these injustices and the damage that this system does on the basis of an unproven fear.
Last edited by sundin13 - on 02 December 2021
